KnowScope

Saturday, June 9, 2012

As the first governor to win a recall vote, Scott Walker has
made history. But is that really a good thing? First, the reasons behind it.
Going into the initial election, Walker promised to revise the budget and bring
Wisconsin back into economic prosperity. One of the largest things draining the
state budget was the payrolls and pensions promised to state workers and union
members back when the economy was bull. True to his word, Walker immediately
passed legislation that stripped many workers of collective bargaining rights
and public benefits with the rationale that these widespread cuts would prevent
layoffs and save 37 million per year and a total 165 million in debt
restructuring.

But
this motion was a particular jab at the unions in place in Wisconsin. Prior to
these laws, all workers within Wisconsin in particular fields were
automatically were made part of the unions. Legislation passed and rescinded
this, far reducing the pull of the union both in resources and numbers. But the
consequences were much farther reaching than that. The concept that a governor
could so limit the power of unions to save his state—if allowed to
continue—could spread to other states. In response, the unions put huge amounts
of money into forming a petition for a recall vote that would remove Scott
Walker and send a very clear message: “The unions have the power and attempts
to take it away are not welcome”. Gathering over a million signatures and
sending thousands of protestors, the recall vote was finalized. However,
despite the massive push to oust Walker, this Tuesday, he was victorious. But
what exactly does this mean? Those who oppose him claim that his narrow victory
margin--53.2% to 46.3%--didn’t adequately represent the far greater economic
clout he held over democratic opponent Tom Barrett: namely, raising 45.6
million as opposed to Barrett’s 17.9.

Protestors marched against Walker, but the majorityof the state still voted for him, implying aconservative, anti-union sentiment.

This
battle is just a small-scale representation of the presidential war going on
right now. As a focal point of the country right now, the fact that Walker—a
republican candidate in a traditionally democratic state—was able to raise so
much money (mainly from out of state wealthy donors) demonstrates a nationwide
support for the Republicans and the new ideology that they seem to represent:
breaking consolidated union power and revamping the economy by removing deals.
The fact that President Obama did not visit Barrett did not go unnoticed
either, as his presence associated with a democratic loss is not something that
his campaign wants.

Yet,
while it is admirable that Walker stuck to his promises despite threats and
protests, it is still to be seen whether his reforms make the desired impacts.
The question is: are the unions a power that really needs to be stopped? It
could be said that union density in countries nowadays really is having a
negative impact on the economy. Take for instance, the majority of Europe which
has a union density of around the 60 to 80% range. But while they’re fiscal
difficulties are greater than the United States, that does not seem large
enough to correlate to the discrepancy in union density of most European
countries (around 70%) to the United States (12%). And China, who is in the
midst of an economic boom has a union density of 90%. On the other hand, all of
these unions are very different, Europe has a total union that is not specific
to trade and has optional entry. The primary union in the United States,
AFL-CIO, utilizes craft unionism and has had mandatory membership everywhere up
until Scott Walker’s legislation.

AFL-CIO, the largest U.S. union, has stronglyopposed Walker's attack on its promised dealsand policies which are bankrupting Wisconsin.

Reducing
these benefits may not complete fix the system but it could be an important
step. Diminishing union power may break the monopolies they hold and raise the
wages of non-union workers elsewhere. Additionally, by ending such a inflated
wage rate it could bring manufacturing and jobs back to the United States. The
original purpose of unions was to protect non-skilled workers from being taken
advantage of during the Industrial Revolution, the long-term consequences of
their existence however have driven the United States into debt it cannot
handle. With all the political backlash it implies, it seems that soon other
states will follow suit in an action to reform their policies and who knows?
Reducing the power of the union may be more beneficial for workers than the
unions themselves ever were.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Workers from the Ministry of Health seek to alleviate
suffering in Sudan

As the media beats its chest and weeps over the people killed and displaced in the recent Syria
conflicts, they tend to forget another conflict that could prove to be vastly
more dangerous: Sudan. Perhaps it is because it has been going on for years, or
it is the media’s natural tendency to dismiss events that are older than 48
hours, but soon the dispute between the separated states of South Sudan and its
northern counterpart will become to large to ignore.

In
July of 2011, the members of the South Sudanese leadership, took a vote in
which there was a 98% affirmation in favor of a split of the country; a move
which was made possible by conditions stated within the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement drafted six years prior. Unfortunately, this separation was not one
which the northern portion of the country took lightly, and violence began
almost immediately. Over disputes between the constantly warring tribes, over
oil boundaries and possession, over stolen cattle and pastoral grazing lands,
millions of lives may once again be spent “resolving” the million-faceted
dichotomy between north and south. Stemming from differences in culture, race
and religion, the tensions that have already led to two civil wars and a death
toll of two million people in Africa’s largest nation are the exposition of
this latest conflict, and perhaps even the same war entirely, only with better
distinguished boundaries.

Rebel leaders, like the above Khalil Ibrahim, divide
the countries between their warring factions.

As
push comes to shove, the disputes that have already claimed 1,100 lives and
displaced roughly 20,000 people will escalate rapidly, with the catalysts of
racism and rage unfettered by outside influence: military or humanitarian. The
longer it continues; however, the less it appears the unified struggle of a
people for their homeland and more like the individual scramble for safety at
the cost of all else. In a time where these now separated nations should be
consolidating and building up their newly effected economies and foreign
relations, the result is nothing more than a further deterioration of political
and social ties. Rebel groups battle, unite, and then fight again. The Sudan
Liberation Army branch under Minni Minawi’s control remains separate from the
Sudan Liberation Army’s branch under Abdul Wahid al-Nur’s control and these
have even fractured into the SLA/Juba Unity, the SLA/Mother and the SLA/AW8;
the Justic and Equality Movement and the Liberation and Justice Movement work
together, but only to fed off the Sudan Armed Forces. Not to mention the
conflict that has carved a region of Sudan into Central, Eastern, Western,
Northern and Southern Darfur.

Conflict in Sudan has led Darfur, a large region,
to be further split into Central and East Darfur

That
is the mantra of the 21st century: individualism. As nationalism
defined the conflicts in the past decades, so has the intolerance and pride
lead to the battles of this era. The Arab Springs revolutions in the Middle
East, Occupy Wall Street in the United States and the European Labor Party
movement define the demands of the people today. Entitlement without
compromise. Disregarding the different and working only for the mutual benefit
of those who think like they do, doesn’t strengthen these movements, it weakens
them and the mutual tolerance and unity that is necessary. Middle Eastern
countries continue to struggle with equality and violence; the Occupy movement
has long been in shambles; and Europe’s economy speaks for itself. If, after
this split, the organizations of Sudan and South Sudan remain unwilling to consolidate
and unify for the betterment of their countries and people, this will be the
legacy of their dreams and ambitions as well.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

I think its safe to say that terrorism is bad. And I’m
pretty sure that the America population would unanimously agree with that
statement. For the past two decades, the emergence of terrorism as a principle
military and political strategy has been a constant bane to the United States:
both in foreign and domestic affairs. Our military interventions in Iraq and
Afghanistan have been consistently antagonized by the Taliban, al Queda and
other rogue insurgent groups determined to undermine our authority and hegemony
through their attacks. And then a little closer to all of our hearts, the
attack on the World Trade Center on 9-11. It seems that terrorism has
consistently opposed core Western values like democracy and has worked to
install government systems that rely on fear tactics and ignore human rights.

The United Nations has sent representatives to overseethe conflict in Syria but even their influence has notprevented terrorism from emerging as part of theopposition

But
what if it worked for us? Persistent despite United Nations sanctions, the war
in Syria continues to rage, with President Bahsar al-Assad deploying more
forces and tanks to fight the opposition. This clash, however has produced some
unexpected results. As conflict is extended and the battle becomes even more
dangerous, rebelling civilians have felt the need to increase the severity of
their attacks, specifically, with the use of terrorism. In the past few days,
multiple incidents of both road-side and suicide bombings have occurred, targeting Syrian
military forces. Granted, road-side bombings are not something unheard of in
the Middle Eastern region, but these occurrence have a distinct twist to them.
This terrorism is being used to support
democracy and reform, a sharp contrast to the usual totalitarian regimes that
it is usually the proponent of.

This
being considered, the United States will have to think strongly about their
position on these actions. For one, they could allow it to continue and support
these actions against the Assad regime. However, this is risky, as the military
support of radical movements like these have given dictators like Saddam
Hussein the ability to rise to power. On the other hand, working against these
rebels would create an irresolvable disparity in foreign alliances. Working
against both of these would be a waste of funds and with limits enforced by the
U.S. and U.N., Syrian rebels could not maintain a viable military effort and
Assad would presumably retain power—leaving one less stable foothold in the
Middle East.

Security forces examine the after effects of a suicidebombing in Damascus

Once
again the United States will be forced to choose between diplomacy and human
rights. In this ongoing dilemma, our personal interests and those of the states
in which we intervene will be pitted against each other. In this scenario,
action or the lack thereof can both have serious consequences, and the decision
the United States makes will set precedent for our policy in the future. The
discrepancy between our ideals and our actions has never become more apparent
and the stance we take regarding these acts of terrorism in our favor will influence
our image at home, abroad, and throughout our entire future.

Monday, May 7, 2012

$15,673,229,738,379.13. Yep, that’s it. Every penny
classified as the United States debt. Now when people see this number, they are
often drawn to think about China. That’s been the scare for the last decade or
so as its GDP steadily advances, but ultimately, we have to look at both sides
of the “China owns half of the United States debate”. First off, that’s wrong,
but not far off. This year, it is expected that our national debt will top our
total GDP. Basically, the United States now costs more than it generates. In
simple terms, we’re upside down. But, notwithstanding this, China still doesn’t
hold the majority of this debt. Only about 8% in fact. That’s only about four
states actually, maybe five if one of them was Wyoming. Regardless, it means
that as far as debt has gone, the United States has played its cards right and
hasn’t given any one country a huge portion of control over us. However, that
doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous. Having the world’s superpower owe extravagant
amounts of money is usually not a recipe for continued stability. Granted, the
United States, has been in this position before—debt-wise—just following World
War II. But debt quickly dwindled after that as the economy soared, and our
puttering economy doesn’t demonstrate that that is the case currently.

China's rapid development in energy, military and economy
has become a major concern to those looking to forward U.S.
hegemony

The
United States first gained its economic power about nine decades ago, with the
end of World War I. The massive scale of the war resulted in spending that
could only be financed by the United States. As a result, the economic center
of the world shifted from London to New York. At this point, the United States
still wasn’t considered the leading power, and it would take involvement in
World War II and demonstration of military prowess to solidify that role. China
only trails the United States by nine billion in terms of GDP, but given that
currently we are indebted to them for about 1.2 billion and their economy
flourishes while ours stagnates, it doesn’t seem so much of a stretch.
Additionally, the second half of that equation is still relevant, and in the
last decade, China has more than quadrupled its military spending to 114.3
billion dollars. Now is not the time to fall behind.

Social Security, Healthcare and other
programs make up the majority of U.S. debt

Looking
at these numbers, it’s easy to instinctively blame government extravagance and
corruption, but pork and small favors are not what composes the majority of
debt. In fact, the term debt refers to two entirely separate entities. The
first of these refers to public debt, in which the government borrows money on
the open market from foreign or domestic lenders. The other, and by far the
larger, refers to intra-governmental debt, in which the government owes itself
money for certain programs. And the largest component of this debt? Social
security and healthcare. That’s it. That’s the problem. And it’s not even
necessarily a problem. Just some perspective. While we remain critical of the
government’s discretionary spending in areas like energy and military, its
important to realize that the majority is drawn from mandatory spending fueled
by our own misguided concept of entitlement. The danger of China is nothing
compared to the individual’s demand for security. Like I said, healthcare and
social security are not inherently bad, but as they continue to drain away
America’s resources, we must ask ourselves not what our country can do for us,
but what we can do for our country.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Obama is drawing criticism for
failing to provide asylum to
Chen Guangchang

Right now, President Obama is taking quite the fall. Now, in all honesty, when is he not? Heck, when is any President not? But this time, I
feel that it’s especially unfair. The main criticisms have come regarding the
United States’ failure to provide asylum for Chen Guangcheng, the blind,
self-taught human rights attorney that wishes to flee China to provide safety
for himself and his family. Both Mitt Romney and John McCain have made
statements critiquing Obama’s lack of human-rights activism within his role as
President, referring to this as a “dark day for freedom” and “a day of shame”.
Now, granted, there is nothing personally wrong with these statements,
obviously Romney is going to take every chance he can to critique the incumbent
and perhaps McCain is still a little bitter, but the real problem lies in the
American thought process as a whole.

Starting
with the rise of communist fear in America, the United States enacted an
extensive intervention program to combat the growing influence of the Soviet
Union. NATO allied Western European countries with the United States and the
Truman Doctrine promised military aid to struggling countries like Turkey and
Greece to help them resist Soviet control. The strategy was a rational one, in
that it effectively protected our economic and political policies. Allow the
Soviet Union and countries under its influence to gain too much power and they
could effectively dominate the United States, blocking trade and surrounding us
with countries that had nuclear capabilities. Nearly five decades later, and
the United States has stuck fast to the same actions, but without the
rationale.

Strange picture. Acceptable policy.

Now,
given, the condition of Chen is something that can be sympathized with, but
ultimately, isn’t the same true with every country’s plight? Kony2012 pushed
the government to take action against Uganda’s Joseph Kony and the LRA to save
abused children, and now, Obama is feeling pressure to intervene in Syria with
military strength as well. As has been said previously, advocating for human
rights is not a bad thing, but at this point in time, is this enough
justification for U.S. action? Many would say no. This is doubly true when we
consider a lot of what influences these decisions. With America’s youth surging
into the new decade with a fierce dedication to activism. However despite, or
perhaps because, of the production of new internet outlets for these political
views—Change.org, for example—the problems with social networking participants
stay the same, namely: easily distracted, poorly informed, and highly
mercurial. Even as the promise to withdraw from Afghanistan is being fulfilled,
more calls are being made to enter Syria. This dangerous combination of
ignorance and indecision is becoming a deadly force in America and urges
government into worthless pursuits.

China has continued to grow exponentially
in terms of GDP

This
isn’t to say that all intervention is bad. As I’ve mentioned, it is something
that is quite beneficial, provided it
benefits the United States sufficiently. The situation in Bahrain right now,
for example, is one that may require U.S. military. The success of revolutions
in this small island country could overthrow the current Sunni government and
spark revolutions in Saudi Arabia, causing us to lose the precious few stable
footholds we have in the Middle East. This could directly affect our oil
consumption and enhance Western-directed terrorist activities. That’s why we
intervene. However, when it comes to internal revolutions in backwards African
countries, the United States cannot afford to invest money into resources and
military to remedy a problem that was never ours. Even within Syria, the United
States already invests in the actions of the United Nations against Assad, and
in China, to assume that the United States should invest time and money to
remedy human rights and instigate reform in a country that is fast overtaking
us in every area is preposterous.

Its
time for America to look inward, with such consuming problems in healthcare,
immigration, energy, etc., and continuing this line of thought will only result
in diminished power. Spreading ourselves thin any longer while China’s GDP
grows an average of 9.7% for the last decade and a half will mean that we won’t
have any interests left defend at home or abroad. Now is the time for the
United States to regroup and regain the identity that fosters growth and
innovation. Turning to a stricter isolationist policy is a viable option that needs to be considered
deeply by government right now. Ron Paul has been right all along, dang it.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

The world is a stage, and while China and the U.S. are
charismatic performers that dominate the stage, India is the lighting
technician. All right, maybe that was a poor analogy, but it conveys India’s
current position: important but vastly under-appreciated. Maybe not for long
though.

With
a major part of the population that continues to live in squalor, India has
always—at least subconsciously—been classified as a sub-developed country. Yet,
in recent years, it has surged ahead and may lie poised at the brink of
becoming one of the world’s leading powers.

India's rapid expansion could lead to benefits for
its people, many of whom live in squalor

First
comes money. With $4.463 trillion in purchasing power in GDP, India is fourth
total in the world and with an annual growth of about .3 trillion, looks to
continue its rise through the ranks. Second come guns. While still outpaced by
global counterparts Russia, China, and the United States, India continues to
heavily prioritize its military industry, funding it with 24.88 billion dollars
annually by 2010 which incorporates 1.33 million in active-duty military, 4,117
tanks, 16 submarines and 691 combat aircraft. Not only this, but it is one of
the few countries that has developed nuclear weaponry, and just a few weeks
ago, proved that it has the ballistic capabilities to use it, through the
successful launch of the Agni-V missile.

The Agni-V missile showed India's capability
to hit China with a nuclear missile

More
important than any of these carefully nurtured domestic aspects, however, is
the political thought that is sweeping over the nation. Recent elections have
shown a shift in perspective that has effectively ousted the ruling Congress
Party from the assembly, leaving them with only 28 seats, while the others are
occupied by regional caste-based representatives. This surge of nationalism
demonstrates an internal resolve that will be essential for India to maintain
and refine if they want to become a more prominent global figure—something that
can’t be obtained through per capita GDP and nuclear missile count alone.

Looking
at all this, it’s easy to see potential, but where is the follow through if
they have been in such a position for several decades? But several factors may
contribute to India’s ability to surpass Russia, China and the United States in
these areas. Its first important to note a shift in the balance of India and
the U.S. For the past several decades, the continuous “brain drain” has drawn
the brightest of India’s economic and business circles to pursue education in
America, and then remain in the States and contribute to our economy. However
as the United States lays entrenched in the recession, prices rise in college,
and India develops more viable secondary education options, India may be able
to retain its think tank. Additionally, the continuous outsourcing of positions
to India leads to their adaptation and improvement on our products, effectively
allowing another country to “inherent our technology and know how” says Fareed
Zakaria in his Worldview on U.S. Manufacturing. Additionally, China’s extensive
growth may prove to be just as detrimental. With such rapid expansion,
economists have explained it as trying to fit centuries worth of growth into
three decades, a strategy that provides no viable foundation and is susceptible
to collapse. Finally, Russia’s recent political scene demonstrates that it is
in no position to progress economically before it resolves itself politically.

Many fear that outsourcing production may benefit
other countries more than the United States

Sure
these are a lot of “if” scenarios, but the fact that India even has this
opportunity at all demonstrates the progress that they have made. Maybe not in a
year, or a decade, or two decades, but as they continue to progress, on the
brink of rapid expansion, there’s no doubt that India will soon get its time in
the spotlight.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

In a diplomatic cable sent September 23, 2009, Ambassador
Patterson assessed U.S. policy regarding Pakistan. What he said, simply put,
was not butterflies and rainbows. “There is no chance that Pakistan will view
enhanced [U.S.] assistance levels in an field as sufficient compensation for
abandoning support to [terrorist and extremist groups]. This cable was released
as part of the Wikileaks stacks and it gave new light to the United States’
continuing struggles with this nation.

Fast
forward two and a half years, and the situation hasn’t improved markedly. As an
ally of the United States, Pakistan continues to try to retain amiable
relations, but is thwarted in this as it must continue to fund terrorist groups
that remain an offensive barrier against India, its sworn enemy. Currently,
relations with the former are dwindling. As Patterson states, they are not
motivated by U.S. assistance and while the Bin Laden attacks may have been
Obama’s trump card, it has not enhanced diplomacy between Pakistan and the U.S.
This and other incidents, such as November’s friendly fire occurrence that left 24 Pakistani soldiers
dead is being hailed as a “[violation] of all mutually agreed procedures”.

A faster route to Afghanistan cuts right throughPakistan

So
why do we stay? Two reasons. Number one: terrorism. Despite their support of
numerous terrorist organizations, Pakistan still helps the U.S.’ war on terror.
Ordinarily, this hesitant show of “good faith” would be negligible, but the
numbers stand. Out of all the Middle Eastern countries, Pakistan has been
useful in bringing the single largest amount of terrorists down. Why would they
do this when they fund a lot of these terrorists in the first place? Rule
number one of Pakistan: everything is a contradiction. That question isn’t for
this article. Secondly: money. As the United States has been actively invested
in Afghanistan, it has been forced to ship countless supplies and soldiers to
the country. Having Pakistan as an ally allows us to fly directly into
Afghanistan. Halting relations with them, however, would force the United
States to detour hundreds of miles to the east in order to avoid treading upon
Iranian airspace.

But
do these things really still matter? This Tuesday, President Obama made a
surprise visit to Afghanistan to negotiate the end of the United States’
military occupation by 2014. This agreement, finalized with Afghan president
Hamid Karzai, still arranges, for continuing United States assistance for an
additional decade. With this in mind, one positive aspect of the continuing
struggle for beneficial relations with Pakistan is dropped. With no more need
of their airspace, we can look to the terrorist issue. As President Obama’s
visit coincided with the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s assassination, it
hails back to the primal fear of the U.S.: al Qaeda. Since his assassination,
bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has failed to move the organization
in a meaningful direction and the factions have split into local regions and
while operations in Yemen and North Africa are still powerful, those in
Pakistan and Afghanistan are negligible.

Obama meets with Karzai, establishing terms of the end ofU.S. military occupation

This
being said, do we continue to retain costly relations with a belligerent
country just to keep tabs on a few minor organizations that don’t pose real
threats to the U.S. This possibility is especially dubious when we assume that
Pakistan will continue to support them regardless of our continued support. When
considering these factors and the possibility that our money might be better
spent repressing more serious terrorist activities elsewhere, it is a strong
vote to abandon Pakistan.

It is never in our best interest to abandon an ally in such
a turbulent region, but considering all the friction that exists so far, a
peaceful separation shouldn’t cause any further damage. It will help with foreign
relations, with our economy and we have nothing to lose, because truly when you
have friends like Pakistan, who needs enemies?